Impact of Neoliberal Education Policies and Academization on UK Education - Essay Example

?Impact of Neoliberal Education Policies and Academisation on UK Education Introduction Education undergoes continuous evolution with the intention of furthering man’s knowledge and skill development. Along with such every-changing educational practices come modifications in educational policies. Education is affected and likewise affects society’s economics, politics and relevant social issues. In the UK, education has undergone several phases of reforms. Neoliberalist philosophy has influenced educational policies. One of the most controversial reform is the academisation of schools, or the taking over of poorly performing schools by private entities and other institutions to introduce changes that will improve them and reach the highest standards of achievement for its students. This paper shall briefly discuss what neoliberalism is and how it impacts educational policies in the United Kingdom. It will then dwell on the issue of forcing some identified low performing schools to become academies. The Academies programme is part of the New Labour Coalition government’s efforts to improve the educational climate of schools. This paper shall evaluate if students’ educational attainment had indeed improve with the implementation of their educational policies. Educational Policies in the UK Ball (2008) summarizes the history of educational reform policies from the 1800’s. The early education policy was drafted to respond to the various needs of social classes, namely, to manage the new urban working class and to give the new middle class a chance to realize their aspirations. Next policy came in the mid 1990’s which found divisions within the public education systems culminating in the creation of comprehensive schools. Ball continues on to the third prominent policy period from the last quarter of the 90’s wherein the New Right attempted to dismantle the welfare state and stress the importance of individual choice in education. Finally, the current policy reform was put into place under Tony Blair’s New Labour party from the late 90’s, advocating for a “competition state” taking practices from businesses into education. This current policy reform under the New Labour government is greatly influenced by neoliberal ideology. Ball (2008) criticizes the “policy overload” (p.2) as a manifestation of politicians creating an image for themselves that they are being proactive in their role as well as succumbing to pressures of globalization. Neoliberalism Neoliberalism was borne out of Adam Smith’s advocacy of classic liberalism as well as the concept of man, society and economics (Clarke, 2005). At its earliest stages, neoliberalism was viewed as an entirely new framework for managing the economy and drafting policies, which make up a capitalist society. Neoliberalism is associated with a set of political beliefs that strongly uphold the state’s purpose of safeguarding individuals specifically commercial, liberty and even their property rights (Nozick, 1974). It respects independent thinking of individuals enough to liberate them or minimize its hold on them and any transgression by the state beyond its purpose of safeguarding them is not acceptable (Harvey, 2005) Freely adopted market mechanisms are believed to be the right way of organizing exchanges of goods and services (Norberg, 2001) because it releases the creative potentials and entrepreneurial nature of people. In turn, it leads to more individual liberty and well-being and a more efficient allocation of resources (Rothbard, 2004). Munck (2005) argued that when government agencies intervene, it is almost always undesirable because it disturbs the natural rhythm of the marketplace, thus reducing its efficiency. Neoliberal Educational Policies Applied to education, neoliberals saw students as global capital and valued according to the skills they have gained to be contributory in the global marketplace. Hence, they should be invested upon and be trained to be competitive in order to bring out the best in them (DenBesten, et al., 2008). Schools and teachers were viewed as hindrances to this view of education and so were urged to seek help from business and industry to enable education to be more business-like in its approach to teaching and learning (Harvey, 2005). Since neoliberalism was taking a foothold of the educational system in the UK, it likewise impacted the educational policies of the country to push students into becoming globally competitive when they leave schools and join the real world (Hatcher & Jones, 2011). Neoliberals envisioned more challenge for the students and that meant forcing schools to be academized (Molnar, 2005; Woods & Woods, 2009; Tomlinson, 2001). For the neoliberals, it was a way to have much influence on the curriculum of the students so they become more competitive, hence, perform at their highest potential (Gunter, 2010; Benn, 2011) . The New Labour government has defined some practices that call for educational reform based on neoliberal principles. These principles shall be briefly discussed and analyzed based on what is written as principle and what has been done in practice. One educational principle influenced by neoliberalism is on curriculum continuity and change in both the national curriculum designed for students and the national curriculum taught in teacher education (Hill, 2001). Improvement of the curriculum entails the incorporation of more progressive methods to update a conservative and elitist curriculum (Armstrong et al., 2009). Teacher education curriculum was proposed to include standards on equal opportunities without encouraging teachers to pursue higher education (Purcell, 2001; Hill, 2001). However, the revised National Curriculum has made little change to the content other than increasing its emphasis on the basics of numeracy and literacy. It however suggested a more flexible curriculum that allows students to develop their own talents and potentials (Rogers & Migniuolo, 2007; Hill, 2001). Another neoliberal educational policy introduced by the New Labour government is the hierarchicalisation of schooling through marketisation and the dissemination of ‘specialist’ schools’ and discouraging comprehensive schools (Molnar, 2005). Specialist schools are schools that focus on certain areas (i.e. technology, languages, sports and arts, business, science, engineering and enterprise) as their specialisation (DfEE, 2001). Such idea fosters competition between schools which may increase inequality between schools (Hill, 2001). “Social Inclusion trough targeted expenditure” is another policy drawn from neoliberalism which promises to benefit the many and not just a few. It entails increased resourcing for inner city schools and other areas where children are socially excluded. It also advocates for increased funding for schools and funding for schools and LEAs budgets to improve their schools (e.g. school buildings) (Docking, 2002). Apart from that, other interventions such as summer schools, mentoring programs, and ‘Excellence in Cities’ programme (DfEE, 2001, p.7). The 2001 Green Paper of the New Labour government reported that universal nursery education for all 4 year olds has been implemented. It also ensured that every school with fewer than 25% achieving 5 or more A*-C GCSE or more than 35 per cent on free school meals will have the incentive to receive extra targeted assistance. The White Paper, on the other hand focused on support for schools and children in the ‘most challenging circumstances’ (DfES, 2001a, p. 49). Social inclusion denotes equal opportunities. The Labour Party (1976) claimed that their programme is founded on the principles of democracy and socialism aiming to shift the balance of power and wealth in favour of the working people and their families (p.10). However, this is contradicted in practice as there continues to be a widening social and educational gap due to selection and hierarch in schooling (Gewirtz, Ball and Bowe, 1995; Tomlinson, 2001). The reduced public expenditure on education with all the budget cuts have taken its toll on the quality of education, hence, New Labour promised major increases in spending (Green Paper, 2001). Still, this has not materialized. In its place is passing on expenditure to privatisation which comprises transferring into private ownership, the services offered by schools (Hill, 2001). The privatisation/ denationalisation or creating new partnerships policy opens school doors to external sponsors to step in and help underperforming schools. Under the City Academy programme, sponsors from the private, voluntary and faith groups can be partners and providers may be invited to help out by establishing new schools whose costs are fully met by the state, and any new school will be open to bidding from possible partners or benefactors (Gorard, 2009). Hill (2001) contends that allowing privatisation and business involvement result in the control of schools and Local Education Authorities (LEAs), therefore, schools lose power to be independent. The improvement of standards and governmental and managerial control over education reinforce punitive measures by imposing “compulsory testing, setting measurable targets; centralised control of the school and ITE curriculum; surveillance and monitoring of pupils, teachers and those involved in 'initial teacher training'; punishment of 'failing' teachers, schools” (Hill, 2001, p. 6). This is related to the academisation of schools. Academies Programme Under the New Labour Government, the Academies programme was introduced by David Blunkett in March, 2000. Academies were “publicly funded independent schools led by sponsors from business, faith, education or charitable institutions” (Purcell, 2011, p. 49). These academies were given the liberty to develop their own ethos and flexibility in conducting their own management, teaching and curriculum practices. It aimed to raise the standards of education by breaking the cycle of underperformance and low expectations coming from teachers and parents themselves (Blunkett, 2000). Capital funding for new or renovated buildings was allocated to such academies, which later on, were delivered through Partnership for Schools in collaboration with the Building Schools for the Future programme (Burke and Grosvenor, 2008, Den Besten et al., 2008). Upon adoption by the new coalition government, academisation of poor performing schools took place making it a controversial programme earning the criticism of educators, parents, and other stakeholders on both national and local levels as well as attracting attention from a growing number of academics (Anti Academies Alliance, 2010; Woods and Woods, 2009, Gunter, 2010). The drastic changes desired by the Academies programme was pushed by a radical approach identifying ‘seriously failing’ and ‘poorest performing schools’ (DfEE, 2000, p. 2, p. 11). It enumerated possible reasons for the failure of schools as deprivation and high pupil mobility, mismanagement by the school administration, poor leadership, inadequate support from the education authorities as well as low aspirations and poor school ethos. Hence, such poorly-performing schools are forced to be academies in an effort to save the students from receiving poor educational standards. They concluded that students’ poor academic performance was associated with socio-economic factors and low aspirations (Purcell, 2011). In relation to neoliberal elements of educational policy, the Academies programme targeted socio-economically-disadvantaged areas and aimed to improve the standards and outcomes of every child in such areas (Gorard, 2009). Achievement of the highest possible standards translated to high performance especially in the GCSE. Hence, schools which do not meet the national target of five or more GCSEs at A*-C grades including English and Maths may be at risk of being academised (DfES, 2007). The government’s regulatory body, Ofsted, was in charge of measuring the success and performance of schools, and academies were observed to be much better at improving educational attainment t a much faster rate than the national average (DfES, 2007). Academies also believed that inadequate educational attainment may be due to lack of opportunities. It does not necessarily mean that since targeted population come from disadvantaged communities that they are deprived, hence they have low standards and low aspirations. In addition to targeting high performance and educational achievement, academies also aimed to ensure the provision of learning opportunities to students. In doing so, Academies are determined to bring equal opportunities to all children (DfEE, 2000). Like most individuals facing huge change, resistance is evident towards the Academies programme coming from the alleged low performing schools, teachers and parents and even LEAs. It is normal to feel defensive when they feel adjudged based on a single year’s examination results in the GCSE or a year that the school experienced a dip in performance (Armstrong et al., 2009). Parents may defend their children’s schools as doing good work to improve their performance such as curriculum innovations and staff training programmes (Purcell, 2011). Even Ofsted inspectors are concerned that forcing schools to be academized undermines their efforts to improve. Heads of schools are always immersed in meetings for academization that their attempts to improve their own school to prevent academization become futile due to their lack of attention for their own schools (Evans, 2013). Evaluating the Academies The inherent goals of the Academies programme are all ideal, considering its sincere desire to bring better education for children in order to maximize their skills and in so doing, be contributory to society and globalized needs (Rogers & Migniuolo, 2007). This implies that students need schools that push them to actualize their potentials with the right environment, curriculum and teaching methods that are updated in motivating students to deliver high achievement. Once a school is determined to be academized due to its poor performance, it receives monitoring visits from inspectors from Ofsted. These inspectors look at the progress made by the forced academy in comparison to the weaknesses that have put them is such situation in the first place. The inspectors check children’s work, data and observe ongoing lessons. They also go through the headmaster’s diary and check how many times governors inspect schools and what they discuss when they do so (Evans, 2013). However, despite the noble goals of academisation, much criticism as thrown about its drastic moves to sweep away its proponent schools as transgressions against social justice (Hatcher & Jones, 2011). Ball (2008) sees it as a pragmatic approach that exudes a lack of trust in teachers and underestimates proponent schools’ achievement indicators as not being meaningful educational accomplishments. He adds the marginalization of social issues to also be predominant. He believes that focusing on the failure in academic achievement of proponent schools especially in the inner city areas addresses a social problem. Ball (2008) describes it as “a social problem of community and family inadequacies rather than an economic problem of structural inequality” (p. 153). In an effort to cultivate a better educational system, such social problems should also be addressed and resolved so children’s chances for greater academic achievement are improved. Benn (2011) agrees that the swift changes academies cast on the educational system are tinged with political agendas to transfer resources from the needy to the better-off. Instead of promoting equal opportunities, academisation is adjudged to be selective and arbitrary with the poorest families not having the same opportunities as the richest. This goes against the claim that academisation intends to offer equal opportunities (DfEE, 2000). Hill (2006) agrees that such neoliberization of education has brought about social class inequalities in the provision of educational opportunities, and disproportionately becomes beneficial to those who can afford to pay for better educational experiences and opportunities. In effect, it widens social class polarization (Molnar, 2005; Hill et al., 2006). Hill (2006) expressed: Where there is a market in schools (where high status schools can select their intakes, whether on ‘academic achievement’ or other class-related criteria such as ‘aptitutdes’), then the result is increasing ‘raced’ and gendered social class differentiation…. High status/high achieving middle class schools get better and better results. In a competitive market in schools, ‘Sink’ schools sink further, denuded of their ‘brightest’ intakes (p. 15). Still, the educational vision of the Academies programme of raising the standards of education and the aspirations of students to be high achieving is worth the effort of planning out well and implementing without the complications of political and business interventions (Rogers & Migniuolo, 2007). Should the promise of the Academies programme of providing equal opportunities for all students be fulfilled, then it will also fulfil Benn’s (2011) advocacy of the provision of a broad and rich curriculum filled with extracurricular opportunities. The coming together of students from all classes, races and religions co-existing in environments which are conducive to learning is a step towards a school system that unifies and not divides the nation (Benn, 2011). Conclusion In a more positive perspective, being vigilant in updating educational policies may be seen as a good sign that the state is always after the improvement of its children’s academic achievement . Neoliberalist influences on such policies give more power to private entities and businesses help out schools in need of support in the provision of better opportunities to its students. The Academies Programme was envisioned to deliver a better educational system to the children of the UK with a richer and more relevant curriculum that should be available to every child. It is the reason why poorly performing schools are being weeded out to be replaced by academy schools so that the teachers and students there will be upgraded to a better system believed to optimize their skills and potentials thereby achieving higher targets set by the Academies programme. However, this educational view is marred by resistance from various sectors who doubt the idyllic intentions of the programme. Academisation of schools is believed to be a way to ‘sell-out’ schools to businesses, and in a way, commercializes education. It is also viewed as instrumental in widening the gap between social classes due to unequal distribution of resources due to its selective nature. This implies that if a school is not chosen to be academized, then it is believed to be doing well, but if it is not performing at par with the Academies’ standards, then it is forced to be turned into an academy. For some schools, it is a welcome change, since they shall be provided with better opportunities for their students and teachers, but for others, it is an insult to the hard work they have invested in their schools and thus resist academisation. The question now boils down to whose standards of student performance and achievement should be recognized – the proponent schools who believe they are doing well before educational policies have been modified, the Academies who propose a better quality of education or the state that implements national tests to measure student achievement. In any case, it is the welfare of students and the provision of the best quality of education for them which should be of utmost priority no matter what social class they come from. Commercial agendas should not override humanitarian causes. After all, these children are the future heirs of the world and deserve the best possible opportunities to prepare them for their future roles in a globalized world. References Anti Academies Alliance, (2010). Anti Academies Alliance [online]. Available from: http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/ [Accessed 04 April 2013]. Armstrong, D., Bunting, V., and Larsen, J., (2009). Academies: a model for school improvement? Key findings from a five year longitudinal evaluation. Management in Education, 23 (3), 118–124. Ball, S. J. (2008). The Education Debate: Policy and Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Bristol, UK: Policy Press Benn, M (2011) School Wars; The Battle for Britain’s Education; London, Verso Blunkett, D.(2000) Transforming secondary education: a speech to the Social Market Foundation. 15 March. Available from: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/speeches/search_detail.cfm?ID=31 [Accessed 3 April 2013]. Burke, C., and Grosvenor, I., 2008. School. London: Reaktion Press. Clarke, Simon (2005): “The Neoliberal Theory of Society”; pp. 50-59 in Alfredo Saad- Filho and Deborah Johnston: Neoliberalism – A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press. Den Besten, O., Horton, J., and Kraftl, P., (2008). Pupil involvement in school (re)design: participation in policy and practice. CoDesign, 4 (4), 197–210. Department for Education and Employment (DfES) (2001a) Schools Achieving Success, DfES, London Department for Education and Employment (DfES) (2001b) Press Notice2001/0335, 5 September: Far Reaching Reform to put the Pupil First and enable every school to succeed, (Press Release accompanying `Schools Achieving Success') DfES, London Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2007. 400 Academies – prospectus for sponsors and local authorities. London: DfES. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), (2000). City Academies: schools to make a difference – A prospectus for sponsors and other partners. London: DfEE DfEE (2001) Green Paper: Schools: Building on Success, DfEE, London Docking, J (Ed) (2002) New Labour’s Policies for Schools ‘Raising the Standard?’ Written by the National Education Policy Course Team, Roehampton Institute, London: David Fulton Publishers Evans, R. (2013) School improvement held back by the ‘academy solution’, The Guardian, March 25, 2013. Available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/mar/25/ofsted-conerns-academies- undermine-improvement Gewirtz, S, Ball, S and Bowe, R (1995) Markets, Choice and Equity In Education, Open University Press, Buckingham Gorard, S., (2009). What are Academies the answer to? Journal of Education Policy, 24 (1), 101–113. Gunter, H., ed.,( 2010). The State and Education Policy: the Academies Programme. London: Continuum. Harvey, David (2005): A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatcher, R. and Jones, K. (eds) (2011) No Country for the Young: education from New Labour to the Coalition. London: Tufnell Press. Hill, D. (2001) The Third Way in Britain: New Labour’s neo-liberal education policy Paper presented at Congres Marx International III Le capital et l'humanite Universite de Paris-X Nanterre-Sorbonne du mercredi 26 au samedi 29 September, 2001 Hill, D. (2006) Class, Capital and Education in this Neoliberal/ Neoconservative Period. Information for Social Change, 23 Hill, D., Maisuria, A. and Greaves, N. (2006) Does capitalism inevitably increase education inequality? In Holsinger, D. B., and Jacob, W. J. (Eds.) International Handbook on Educational Inequality. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. (co- writer with A. Maisuria and N. Greaves). Labour Party (1976) Labour’s Programme for Britain 1976 (Annual Conference Report) The Labour Party, The Labour Party Molnar. A. (2005) School Commercialism: From Democratic Ideal to Market Commodity. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Munck, R. (2005): “Neoliberalism and Politics, and the Politics of Neoliberalism”; pp. 60-69 in Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston: Neoliberalism – A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press. Norberg, J. (2001): Till varldskapitalismens forsvar. Stockholm: Timbro. Nozick, R. (1974): Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell. Purcell, K. (2011) Discourses of aspiration, opportunity and attainment: promoting and contesting the Academy schools programme, Children’s Geographies Vol. 9, No. 1: 49–61 Rogers, M., and Migniuolo, F., (2007). A new direction: a review of the school academies programme. London: TUC. Rothbard, Murray ([1962/1970] 2004): Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles—Power and Market: Government and the Economy. [Two books republished in one file.] Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute Tomlinson, S (2001) Education in a post-welfare society, Open University Press, Buckingham Woods, P.A., and Woods, G.J., (2009). Special issue: Academies in England. Management in Education, 23 (3). Read More